DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
2025CUBC042907·ventura·Civil·Civil
Hearing about 2 months agoGRANTED

SUSQUEHANNA OFFICE SERVICES, L.P. vs CENTRICITY LABS, INC.

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Brian Davidson Waldvogel ESA Brian Waldvogel AKA Brian Davidson Waldvogel

Hearing date
Jul 7, 2026
Department
21
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffSUSQUEHANNA OFFICE SERVICES, L.P.
DefendantCENTRICITY LABS, INC.
DefendantBrian Davidson Waldvogel

Ruling

2025CUBC042907: SUSQUEHANNA OFFICE SERVICES, L.P. vs CENTRICITY LABS, INC. 07/07/2026 in Department 21 Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Tentative Rulings. Parties and counsel appearing for oral argument should address the tentative decision. Parties may submit on the tentative decision by email, with a copy to all other parties in the matter, to courtroom21@ventura.courts.ca.gov before 8:00 a.m. on the day set for the hearing, with a subject line that includes “SUBMISSION ON TENTATIVE”, Case Number, Title and Party. If fewer than all parties submit on the tentative, the hearing will proceed, and the tentative ruling is subject to change. The clerk cannot advise if you should still appear or not. The decision of whether to appear for a hearing is to be made by the parties and their counsel. (Dept. 21 Rules & Procedures, p. 4, § II.I.)

The following is a statement of the Court’s tentative ruling. The Court may adopt, modify or reject the tentative ruling after hearing. The tentative ruling has no legal effect unless and until adopted by the Court.

Motion: Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Brian Davidson Waldvogel ESA Brian Waldvogel AKA Brian Davidson Waldvogel. Tentative Ruling: The Court GRANTS Defense counsel’s motion to be relieved. Counsel’s withdrawal will be effective as of the date of filing the proof of service of the signed Order upon defendants at their last known address. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362(e).) " Moving party to give notice of this Court’s ruling.

1

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share